If you have, please justify its inclusion and your recommendation of such preposterous filth as:

... the local postman, Mr Abdul Aziz, knows very well where he should deliver the extra 200 postal votes designated for the non-people within the non-houses.

[And, for family consumption, that's one of the safer bits!]

Do you really approve and applaud a site, run out of the Great State of Virginia, explictly predicated to the assertion that At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war?

Note particularly, in the context of the whole inflammatory piece, that bit in the last paragraph as the native EDL square up to foreign Islam and their Communist allies.

when i visit Totty Tory I get this message: Warning: Visiting this site may harm your computer!The website at www.torytottyonline.com contains elements from the site rpc.blogrolling.com, which appears to host malware – software that can hurt your computer or otherwise operate without your consent. Just visiting a site that contains malware can infect your computer.

Opinions will differ on the Gates of Vienna site, but there has been enough other evidence of electoral fraud.

Iain, do you think it should be Coalition policy to abolish postal voting for everyone except those who are too disabled to get to the polling station, and members of the forces who are serving away from home? I do.

(Being on holiday should no longer count as a reason for having a postal vote, now that we have fixed-term Parliaments. Anyone who wants to ensure that he or she votes, can choose holiday dates accordingly. And when polling booths are open from 7 am to 10 pm, very few shift workers would be unable to vote in person.)

I thank you for your acknowledgement. I accept all of what you say there.

My objection was made, not because such hysterics need "discussed", but because you specifically saw "disturbing evidence" in what I see as evidence of disturbance.

So, my initial interjection was made in horror. The views in the post you listed would hardly shock on too many right/centre sites. They do here, precisely because your Diary is wide-ranging and typifies decent and (smallest "l") liberal attitudes — which is why I come around for my regular dose of execration and ridicule.

Malcolm Redfellow, it is evident that you struggle to comprehend the concept of freedom of speech, so here is a clue. In a free society people have the freedom to say things with which Malcolm Redfellow diasgrees.

As far as I am aware, Baroness Warsi told the New Statesman that she believed that the Conservatives lost three seats at the General Election because of electoral fraud, and that these problems seemed to be predominantly associated with the Asian community, with Labour the beneficiary.

The suggestion that her claims have no connection with current police investigations is baseless speculation on your part, since she did not mention any specific constituency.

As for electoral fraud not being the point, I think you will find that accusations of electoral fraud is the point. That is why Iain linked to the article.

Now Iain may or may not agree with every single point uttered in every article to which he links, but what is clear is that you show a typical Leftist desire to close down any debate which contains opinions with with which you disagree.

Let us hope that the concerns about electoral fraud turn out to be incorrect.

As for arguments about the success or otherwise of people from one religious tradition integrating into a community dominated by another religious tradition, I am sure the history of Ireland can give us many instructive examples, but that is another debate.

"As far as I am aware, Baroness Warsi told the New Statesman that she believed that the Conservatives lost three seats at the General Election because of electoral fraud,"

She stated it as fact, not merely that she believed it. She's been rowing back furiously ever since. She is truly the gift that keeps on giving.

You may want not follow Malcolm's excellent link, although I would warn you it does contain facts. You may not be used to this approach.

Iain I think the problem is not that you merely linked to the site, but you appended the implicit endorsement that they had evidence to support their racist gibberish. Anyone reading the screed will see they have no such thing

wild @ 5:23 PM gives a fair account of the doings of the noble Baroness Warsi. He obviously failed to link to my reference: type in haste, repent at leisure. We've all done it.

The active cases of which I have heard are both private actions:

* The Lib Dem candidate in Oldham East and Saddleworth, Elwyn Watkins, is pursuing Phil Woolas over alleged false statements. This action is under Section 106 of the 1983 Representation of the People Act; and has nothing to do with fraudulent voting.

* Rodney Connor, the “independent” Unionist (with DUP and UCUNF support), has lodged an election petition to overturn Michelle Gildernew’s majority of 4. This is in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Among the dreary steeples such court action is considered an essential part of the electoral timetable.

As I said, neither bears any possible resemblance to Baroness Warsi's statements, nor to the remarkably-similar piece that (for one example) the Observer published as long ago as 2nd May 2010.

For the third time, my objection to Mr Dale giving the piece in question his premier recommendation is that he claimed it to be disturbing evidence of electoral fraud. I read the piece. It contains absolutely no evidence. I therefore invoked the Trades Descriptions Act. I have learned to expect better of Mr Dale.

You condemn Baroness Warsi for asserting that electoral fraud has taken place. Well whatever her evidence we can be sure of one thing, your rejection of her claims is based on no evidence whatsoever. If you condemn her on those grounds, then you equally condemn yourself. Neither you nor Baroness Warsi however will be the ones who decide if there is a case to answer. It will be decided by the police and the courts. It is an issue however that will concern anybody with the slightest moral integrity.

Malcolm Redfellow,

I think that Iain said that he may or not agree with the articles that he links to, but that he links to articles which raises issues which merit discussion. It seems that you fail to understand this concept. Whether or not you yourself would have linked to the article is irrelevant. Got it yet?